Shocking Home eviction by corporate police, your views sort please.

A reply that is high on bleak rationality but, utterly lacking in moral responsibility. Your sentiments are wrong.

I feel he has been very poorly advised and possibly used by certain people for their political advantage.

I agree on both counts, although I’m not sure I’d call it ‘political’ advantage; those that turned-out to ‘protect’ him didn’t seem to have much of a political message other than ‘anybody and everybody in authority is out to get us’!

I would not have expected anyone to risk their life in a patently futile act of heroism.

I am sure had the idiot boy been bobbing up and down somebody would have done something. But with a large, dangerous lake and no indication where he was, what would be the point of plunging in?

Gestures are great. But I certainly wouldn’t have entered the water in that situation.

There is no parallel at all to my accident last year. I left the aircraft unaided. Somebody was kind enough to call an ambulance, but I was sufficiently unharmed to be capable of calling and reassuring my wife that I was alive and likely to stay that way, so I could easily have dialled 999 myself. Had the aircraft been on fire everyone knows where the cockpit is. Had they been generous enough to attempt to extricate me under those circumstances i would have been very grateful, but it certainly wouldn’t have been expected, nor would I have blamed amateurs without the right equipment for not trying.

Moggy

As suspected this case has been going on for many, many months and the bankruptcy stage reach around January this year.

Ken is saying that he was not liable for the period that the council is claiming business rates. He is saying that the council have not provided any evidence either to him or the court why they considered him liable. He also stated that he could pay the £6000 and carry on the case about liability afterwards. He represented himself in court and now regrets that saying he wished he had used a solicitor.
This may not have been acceptable at this stage because of the significant costs that had been incurred. The OR needs to proceed with the sale of the property before the costs puts it into negative equity in relation to the fees.

I repeat that I feel he has been very poorly advised and possible used by certain people for their political advantage. This has cost him dearly. There is probably no recovery from this now as evidence was not produced at the right time.

No one has ever accused me of being a sentimentalist. “..significant improvement to the gene pool..” Bit tasteless old chap, bit tasteless. Couldn’t be said even by one as lacking in sentiment as I am.

The Toytown Kops knew that someone was in the water if they’d bothered to interpret the amount of hysterical activity indicating such.

There’s no excuse. Forget the fact that they were the police. There is a clear moral responsibility on each one of us to render assistance in a situation that threatens the life of another person.

I seem to recall that you yourself were in such a situation not too long ago. I wonder how you would felt or, what you would have thought if the jobsworth who attended the scene had said by way of a response to your request:

“Sorry mate, I’d like to help but I ain’t had no training and besides it looks as tho’ it might catch fire any minute ”

You’d have been less than impressed but, happy knowing that you’d be contributing to a significant improvement of the gene pool.

More videos on Youtube.

Office talking to Ken and shows him the warrants. Ken looks at them but does not take them. Bailiff attempts to force entry and fails. He appears to say door has been screwed up. Taking action to deliberately prevent entry in this case is an offence.

Young children about also filming.

Having read (some of) this it seems that bailiffs have no legal right to enter a property by force anyway…

…if that is the case what is the point of the ‘law’ regarding eviction?

In a normal civil case, say landlord v tenant, the police are not involved at all and can only be present to keep the peace. It is correct that a bailiff cannot use force so gain entry. So agreed what’s the point.
HOWEVER, in this case it is money owed to HMRC, the council is merely the collector, the debtor has been made bankrupt and all assets now belong to the Official Receiver and a warrant signed by a judge can be issued authorising force to be used by the bailiff and if specifically stated also by the police.

He and a group of friends entered the water in an area out of bounds to swimmers about 30 minutes after the lifeguard came off duty, and reportedly ignored requests to get out. Mr Greenfield was seen having difficulties in a 10ft-deep section of the pond and shouting for help before he disappeared under the surface.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said that initially there was no sign of Mr Greenfield in the water. He added: “At no stage were officers made aware of the location of the man in the water, nor could anyone indicate the approximate area where he might be within what is a large expanse of water.”

The spokesman said: “The heath constabulary officers are here to enforce bylaws in the park — they are not trained lifeguards and the water is dangerous and very murky, so they are advised they are not to go in until proper assistance arrives.”

I think in this case the Heath constabulary acted totally correctly with a significant improvement to the gene pool.

As they had no idea where the idiot boy was, no purpose would be served by them diving in and possibly endangering themselves.

Just my opinion.

Moggy

Another video where the fascist storm troopers try to explain several times that they are not working for the bailiffs but executing a court order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45q1PgzvLrk

…the police are not working for the bailiffs but are carnying out the court’s instructions and upholding the law decided in court.

What a shocker! :rolleyes:

You Tube has much to commend it but the free availability of videos such as this with the sole purpose of publicising a minority’s warped view of the society in which they choose to live does You Tube no favours.

The private agendas of people with twisted mentalities is of no interest to me and I will refrain from adding further oxygen to this episode, particularly as the “facts” are incomplete.

A further MUST SEE video where a police officer says that they have carefully checked all the paperwork and it is in order and that the court has issued a warrant to be executed by the police.
The officer states the police are not working for the bailiffs but are carnying out the court’s instructions and upholding the law decided in court.

Almost at the end one of the crowed states to an officer that his (Ken) father and mother paid for the house so it may be that there is no mortgage. If Ken did own the house he could have used the equity to secure a loan, assuming he was not unemployed.

Less edited videos on Youtube with more information from Ken.

And by ‘comments’ you mean the deranged rantings of a lot of ill-informed delusionals…

Indeed, that is par for the course for Youtube.:D

To date nobody has made any reference to the “comments” made on this video on YouTube.

And by ‘comments’ you mean the deranged rantings of a lot of ill-informed delusionals…

…apparently the ‘corporate police’ are the desensitised mercenary lackeys of the Illuminati and if we all rose-up killed the police, overthrew the government and stopped paying our taxes we’d be able to live in freedom in a utopian paradise!

Firstly I had no previous knowledge of the case and know no more than what is in the video plus what I have subsequently researched together with 65 years of life experience.

On seeing the video I did have one overall reaction but I will keep that for later.

My life experience tells me that things are rarely what they seem and are like an iceberg. What lies underneath is usually much larger than what appears to be on the surface.
On consideration I decided to ignore all the ranting, raving and baying of the crowd and try and work out what the likely situation actually was with the facts and reasonable assumptions available to us but were not conveyed in the video.

Ken, the debtor, admitted the debt was originally £6,080.
The house had been owned by the debtor, Ken.
An assumption that there is likely to be a mortgage.
That Ken had children but it was not stated that children lived at the house.
No mention was made of a partner.
The debt was for business rates arrears.
Assumption that the debtor owned a business.
Assumption that debtor was a sole trader and not a limited company.
Assumption that if it was a limited company then the debtor was a director of that company.
That the debt was originally for £6,000, as stated by Ken in video.
That the debt now stands at £76,000, as stated by Ken in the video.
That the policy were talking through the door before entry.
That it was the police that forced entry.
That there was a number of people, the crowed, at the site many taking videos.
No physical violence or obstruction was offered by the observers.
The police did not attempt to prevent the any video being taken or try to disperse the observers.
The observers were heckling the police with comments aimed at the police force and police officers and their families personally. Including a reference to Nuremburg and Mengele. Various comments related to Nazis.
Most of the comments heard on the video were made by one person.
Very little verbal response was made by the police
The video had been edited and/or selectively taken.
Some comments and statements on the screen were factually incorrect.
The statement made by Mr Spy at the end contained some facts and some incorrect information.
Personal items were removed from the house, Ken was present and appeared to be taking them away.
No children or partner were seen.
No toys or property relating to children were seen.
The publishers of the video clearly had an agenda outside this case.

If you feel I have made a mistake in any of the above please let me know.

Gentlemen,

Firstly I would like to thank you for taking the time to watch the video and post. I value all your views whether I agree with them or not.

To date nobody has made any reference to the “comments” made on this video on Youtube. Although I am well aware that, in general, it is not a good idea to waste ones time reading comments on Youtube However, I was surprised that all the posts that I read were vehemently supportive of the message that the video was putting across to the point of what I thought was, in some cases, incitement to violence.

Some information

http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/bailiffs-and-police-official-guidance.htm

Having read (some of) this it seems that bailiffs have no legal right to enter a property by force anyway…

…if that is the case what is the point of the ‘law’ regarding eviction?

Yes the law in a civil case as I said the Police are there to prevent a breach of the peace not put doors in that is the job of Court Officials only. It is a civil case.

So, if I understand you correctly, nobody, not you, not the ‘victim’, not the ‘protectors’ who shot the video would have been the slightest bit bothered if the bailiffs had kicked the door down…

…in fact there’d be no video to watch because the activists wouldn’t have been there, as there was no reason for them to be there, the law was being followed to the letter so they would have had nothing to protest about?

From what we see of the modern police force (as opposed to Lincoln 7 and my own memories( naughty boy smack round the ear, never do that again)), we have entered the frightening world of unfit, stazi dressed individuals who do not command respect. When the respect of police officers and law and order die, chaos ensues.

Let’s chase celebrities or newspaper reporters at dawn with 50 troops (oh no, got that wrong; 12 persons good and true saw through that one). Return Police to their smart, user/public friendly uniform and stop every erk on the street from issuing penalty notices. (No doggy poop bags have a £100 fine). This country has really has denigrated into an officious, self-serving, set of nobodies ruling the chattering classes.

No wonder, when today I followed a driver up a very busy & dangerous main road on a mobile phone, who was braking, accelerating and hesitating at roundabouts, when I sounded my horn all I got was the finger. That is the current respect for the law. Oh sorry, there is no one to enforce the law any more. This video just reinforces that view.

Beware, anarchy is just round the corner.

Rant over